A Hired Gun--Your Take On It??

[sftballdad10U]

How young do you guys see this happening? 10U/12U or is it just the older divisions?

[Demonboy]

Gold teams do it all the time with college players. Sooner or later you'll have
to deal with it.

Gold, at least, requires that college players be on the Championship Roster....so the players on that team know that they have ringers before they go to qualify....

You could argue it is even worse in Gold. You're already on the bench for the qualifiers.

[dallasfungo]

It's a way of life starting at 16U, I think. I've seen some 10U teams recruit for championship play; they win but they develop a rabid, hate-mongering group of former parents that try to make the coaches lives a living hell. There's one 95 team in North Texas (who I will not name for fear of inciting 4 more pages of flamethrowing) that reportedly has had at least 70 players churn through the team in the last 3 years. This according to one of their x-coaches who has a been tracking it, I haven't kept count myself.

Some might consider it a sign a mediocre coaching to have to rely on hired guns to win. The view is that it's an admission that they couldn't develop their own players so they had to go get players that other people developed. Not that I completely agree with that...

[Sam]

I think it depends on the age level. If you are running kids through showcases I think people understand the emphasis on marketing. Pulling a bunch of great players together garners attention for all of them. [b]Great players on average teams will obtain more exposure if they are grouped with other great players on one team. My guess is that the #12-#15 players on OC Batbusters Gold get more attention than if they were starters on lesser known teams.

At younger ages, however, bringing in a couple of great players for championship play every year (while the kids who have been with you all season ride the bench) will erode your credibility as a coach. The coach becomes known as a recruiter and the community knows that the roster on October 1 and May 1 will not be the roster on July 27. Good players and families will learn to walk away from those teams to avoid all the drama.[/b]

I couldn't disagree more and I don't think your scenario bears out. I knew a kid in that exact scenario...she went to an Ivy League school and got no softball money...she played college softball, but she didn't go to Stanford...she didn't benefit at all from being an OC Batbuster. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to playing on "lesser" teams. The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to stand out...and they get to face teams like the Batbusters...get to face their pitchers and batters (12-15 on the Batbusters never have to face Cat Hosfield)...if they join an established Gold team. If a player chooses to play on an "unestablished" Gold team, they may stand out, but it may be more difficult for them to be seen by the upper echelon of colleges.

But its really a moot point since these kids are going to be verballed after their first season of 16U at 43' anyway.

[3'sDad]

Sam: If DD were lucky enough to get to have the grades to be accepted to an Ivy (PS Princeton would be great as we're from back East) and play softball, even without softball money, we would consider that a great success and worth all the hard work and effort she would put in.....Stanford can only take so many...

[Sam]

Sam: If DD were lucky enough to get to have the grades to be accepted to an Ivy (PS Princeton would be great as we're from back East) and play softball, even without softball money, we would consider that a great success and worth all the hard work and effort she would put in.....Stanford can only take so many...

The point was that this kid was not helped at all by being a 12-15 player on Haning's team....she would have gone to the Ivy League school regardless. She could have been a starter for the Baby Seal Clubbin Swingin Tikis Gold....and still would have gone to the school she attended.

[Killer Rabbit]

I had posed a question to a friend of mine the other day: What is the age group that coaches start bringing in "better" players and letting go of the girls that they have had for years? Apparently it starts now (DD is moving up to 14's after nationals). I struggle with the purpose of why are we here...to teach the game and the life lessons that go with it...or to win, period.

[dallasfungo]

[quote="Sam"}
I couldn't disagree more and I don't think your scenario bears out. I knew a kid in that exact scenario...she went to an Ivy League school and got no softball money...she played college softball, but she didn't go to Stanford...she didn't benefit at all from being an OC Batbuster. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to playing on "lesser" teams. The advantage is that a player has the opportunity to stand out...and they get to face teams like the Batbusters...get to face their pitchers and batters (12-15 on the Batbusters never have to face Cat Hosfield)...if they join an established Gold team. If a player chooses to play on an "unestablished" Gold team, they may stand out, but it may be more difficult for them to be seen by the upper echelon of colleges.

But its really a moot point since these kids are going to be verballed after their first season of 16U at 43' anyway.[/quote]

Easy big fella. The college recruiting topic is worthy of a different thread, but:

There are hundreds of kids who play at DI, DII and DIII levels and most of them didn't play with a "premier" club. There are lots of ways to engage college coaches and being on a high performing team is only one of them. My example is drawn from the Texas Glory organization as was described to me by Dan Adkins. He applied an "add at the top" recruiting philosophy to build his team that eventually put 13+ kids into major DI colleges (Georgia, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, etc.). The point was that deserving, talented kids might have more opportunity for looks if they were surrounded by other deserving, talented kids. It worked for the kids on that team and laid the foundation for other Glory girls who follow. When he founded the Glory organization there really weren't many notable clubs in North Texas; there were lots of average teams that each had one or two really strong players. Each year, starting at 10U, he added players who were as good or better than his top 3 players. By the time they reached the Gold level they had assembled a very talented group of kids, and 5 of those (I think) were from the original 10U team.

SoCal has a long history of kids moving on to major college programs but its a relatively new phenomena in North Texas. UT-Austin, for example, only started playing softball in 1997. Certainly there are hundreds of kids who get their college of choice without being part of a premier club. Any copy of Fastpitch Delivery will pack a ton of recruiting advice and stories with of good kids who got there.

[Blind Squirrel]

"If a player chooses to play on an "unestablished" Gold team, they may stand out, but it may be more difficult for them to be seen by the upper echelon of colleges."

My kid played on an 18 Gold team that had no shot of going to Nationals. Always played at secondary fields at exposure tournaments. At different times, her team was watched by UCLA, Arizona State, Stanford, Ohio State, Oregon, all more than once. Innumerable other major colleges as well. If a college coach believes a kid may have the talent to help their team, they have no problem watching a non-big name team and going out of their way to do it. In fact, if a kid is not a top tier player, they may be better off not playing on a top, big name team. My views based upon my total of three years of experience.

John

[dumboldman]

I have heard of teams bringing in a "Hired Gun" to pitch for them in Qualifiers and or National Tournaments. I would like to know the general feeling towards this discission from both parents and coaches that have experienced it in the past. How was it taken from your players and parents.

coachkev-just curious.... what's your take on it?